2019 F-35 News and Discussion

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

[USER="77292"]LMFS[/USER]

Two points:
1. Reading the above shows that your understanding Of CSG operations is faulty.
2. Your using the range on a specific strike profile for each variant shown in the SAR report. Very different from Russian manufacterer’s “range” claims. In an Air to Air flight profile, add about another 100nm and you’ll be close.

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 484

[USER="58228"]mig-31bm[/USER]
These A2G profiles are 2 x JDAM + 2 x AMRAAM true? Hi-Lo-Hi or rather Hi-Hi-Hi? Ranges and combat radius in real operation are depending on a number of issues and it is not always clear how all these have been chosen and how they would translate to other set of circumstances. That is why I am not going to discuss about 50 nm more or less. We have scarce information as it is logical due to nature of these matters. I prefer looking at the broad capabilities of the different systems, assuming I am not going to know every detail.

Regarding radar horizon: Tu will not be targeting the carrier with its own radar most probably, but based on naval surveillance data. Both China and Russia have space based assets for this and many other sources of data.
Intangible barrier: I get your point, mine is the bigger the range of the attacking weapon, the bigger the area to be covered. F-35 is not extremely fast, long ranged (though range is more than decent) and its missiles are not long ranged, much less against planes flying higher and faster than itself. So it is difficult to make this barrier tight, even when the anti-ship missiles would need the carrier going some km inside the defence bubble of the carrier, which is not necessarily the case as seen. But of course this is a very complicated matter and also very case-specific. You may allow the carrier to come closer to shore or not, attack the carrier itself or just the air wing, with SAMs or interceptors. Or maybe down the CMs launched, since they are only subsonic targets. Not considering complexities like subs, other vessels etc etc etc. Only for military professionals and with reserves due to lack of info about the true capabilities and intentions of the opposing side. For me it is enough to make a point: land based assets have big advantages because they are not constrained in number or size as carrier borne or in general naval ones are. And hence carriers are better used against lower level militaries than against peer countries. Not writing them off yet but the level of threat is very high for them right now.

[USER="40269"]FBW[/USER]
1. I do hope a fleet commander knows more than myself about CSG operations, I am no expert in the matter. But I would not be discussing latest tactics and capabilities online if I were, would I? Can you please explain where is the fault in my understanding that is relevant to the issue at hand?
2. As said, combat radius is a complex issue, but 100 nm more or less wont cut the case since we don't know them in detail for other involved weapons systems and there are significant additional tactical complexities to take into account. You surely are aware that when handling data, precision and significance are enemies.

Member for

3 years 2 months

Posts: 550

A task force will generally be using AEW of some kind, which will spot a bomber or MiG-31 a long way off. And an F-35 with a Meteor won't need to get very close to kill them. You also have the issue that the Kh-32 and Kh-47 are not unkillable and likely need some kind of OTH targeting system in place for a 1000km strike, which will likely involve satellites. These can also be shot down and/or jammed, as can the missile's terminal homing radar.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Classic J-turn. spectacular for airshows (honestly i love it). Extreme loss of energy.

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years 2 months

Posts: 376

Got a question on the F-35. Is its Next Generation jammers in pods or is it like an EW suite? Where does each block for each jammer go to on the F-35 since I heard each block upgrade is to jam each certain frequency ranges?

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,197

They are AESA versions of the existing ALQ-99 pods on the Growler. They are not self-contained and need an onboard system that will manage them.

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years 2 months

Posts: 376

thanks Spud for that info.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

They are AESA versions of the existing ALQ-99 pods on the Growler. They are not self-contained and need an onboard system that will manage them

Not sure what you are trying to say here Spud.
The ALQ-99 jamming pods were modular and components could be swapped out or mixed , the ALQ-249(v)1 shares no commonality with ALQ-99

The three NGJ increments were to each have a different pod
Increment 1- Raytheon ALQ-249 mid band (LRIP 2020, IOC 2022)
Increment 2- (NGJ-LB) Contract award to L3/Northrop/Harris. Low band jammer different pod/architecture than ALQ-249
Increment 3- (NGJ-HB) This one is up in the air (unfunded as of yet), possible expansion of ALQ-249 capabilities, or swap out, or possibly a 3rd unique pod.

NGJ currently isn't slated for integration on the F-35.

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,197

What I was trying to say is that NGJ pods serve the same function as the ALQ-99s in that they are the transmitters (pointy end) of the jamming system on the Growler.

You are correct that they are currently not scheduled for F-35 integration.

Profile picture for user SolarWarden

Member for

5 years 11 months

Posts: 234

F-35 at Red Flag 19-1 is doing its thing.

Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. – Today, Airmen from the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron wrapped up flying operations with the F-35A Lightning II in an “exponentially more challenging” Red Flag.
The 4th FS integrated the F-35A into a large, capable “Blue Force” in diverse missions against an equally capable “Red Force.” Nearly 3,000 personnel from 39 separate units participated in the exercise, including the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, Royal Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force.
The Red Force was made up of hybrid threats, combinations of the “most advanced weapons systems out there,” meant to replicate “near-peer” enemies in a large scale conflict. The shift closely aligns with the National Defense Strategy.
“The first time I came to Red Flag in 2004, our tactics were the same as they had been since the early 1980s. Now, the threat and complexity are at a whole different level,” said Col. Joshua Wood, 388th Operations Group commander. “It’s no longer assumed that we will gain and maintain air superiority. That’s a big shift.”
Red Flag aggressors encompass the whole spectrum of an adversary force – advanced integrated air-defense systems, an adversary air force, cyber-warfare and information operations. Because of these diverse capabilities, many Red Flag missions are flown in “contested or denied” environments with active electronic attack, communications jamming, and GPS denial.
“Those situations highlight the fifth-generation capabilities of the F-35. We’re still able to operate and be successful. In a lot of cases we have a large role as an integrated quarterback,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th Fighter Squadron commander. “Our ability to continue to fuse and pass information to the entire package makes every aircraft more survivable.”
During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.
“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.’”
The young pilot then “killed” the enemy aircraft and had three more kills in the hour-long mission.
“Even in this extremely challenging environment, the F-35 didn’t have many difficulties doing its job,” Wood said. ‘That’s a testament to the pilot’s training and the capabilities of the jet.”
One of the most valuable things about this exercise for the 4th Fighter Squadron is the experience it provided younger pilots flying combat missions as part of an integrated force. Thirteen pilots in the squadron have never flown the F-35 in Red Flag, and four of them just graduated pilot training.
“They say it’s the most realistic thing to combat,” said 1st Lt. Landon Moores, a new F-35A pilot. “It’s been pretty intense.”
Red Flag is not a “rolling campaign.” It is made up of different scenarios that increase in difficulty as the weeks go on. This allows the integrated force to learn how best to capitalize on the strengths and protect the weaknesses of each platform in very specific mission sets.
“With stealth, the F-35 can get closer to threats than many other aircraft can. Combined with the performance of the fused sensors on the F-35, we can significantly contribute to the majority of the missions,” Morris said.
The missions aren’t just 90-minute flights. They require 12-hours of intense planning the day prior, a two hour pre-brief, and then several hours of debriefing after the mission – dissecting the outcome and looking for ways to improve.
“It’s not like we just come back and high-five if we’re successful,” Morris said. “Could we have done better? Did we have all the resources we needed? Often the brief and debrief is the most valuable part of Red Flag, especially for younger pilots.”
The squadron brought 12 aircraft and more than 200 Airmen to the three-week exercise – pilots, maintainers, intelligence officers, weapons crews, and support personnel, including reservists from the 419th Fighter Wing. Maintainers didn’t lose a single sortie to a maintenance ground-abort and had spare aircraft available for every mission.
“As this aircraft matures, we continue to see it be a significant force-multiplier in a threat-dense environment,” Morris said. “Red Flag was a success for us and has made our younger pilots more lethal and more confident.”

http://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1759536/hill-airmen-f-35-a-lethal-combo-at-red-flag/fbclid/IwAR2w309h5-vSi-tfjmZt7mvrlwrYkwMMti4CDwj39J8d_xPXiiupS45Js9g/

Member for

8 years 10 months

Posts: 999

F-35 at Red Flag 19-1 is doing its thing.

Is there a list of fighters type that joined this Red flag? Any European one?

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Impatiently waiting what will in the future happen to overvitamined F-1C during those red flag.

Member for

3 years 2 months

Posts: 550

The red air team is screwed.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

The red air team is screwed.

if it were a “heads up” competition. Red air can be handicapped with intel, data, simulated weapons, sensors, numbers through regeneration. From reports, Red Air exacts a steep learning curve on novice red flag participants as difficulty ramps up. Also, the sides are fluid depending on the mission set and parameters. Draken and Tac Air support are dedicated aggressor contractors filling in for the deactivation of aggressor squadrons (besides 64th), they are pros.

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,197

They were in the Dec2018 Red Flag..